Jump to content
xanderf

Game changes you DID want from v1 that aren't in v2

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

You don't want this, trust me. It causes a myriad of balance issues. Just look at Star Trek: Attack Wing.

It's a mess.

I would think their new sliding scale of points cost could really help mitigate the balance issues.  A pilot would cost more on one chassis than another, no problem to implement that, right?

Worst-case scenario, they can ban the ability to put certain pilots on certain ships in their app.  Like as things stand now, if X-Wings turn out to be too good with torpedoes, they can just make it so that X-Wings can't equip torpedoes.

This was after all the whole point of the upgrade bars & points costs not being printed on the cards anymore.  So it's not like pilots couldn't follow the same rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sparklelord said:

I would think their new sliding scale of points cost could really help mitigate the balance issues.  A pilot would cost more on one chassis than another, no problem to implement that, right?

Worst-case scenario, they can ban the ability to put certain pilots on certain ships in their app.  Like as things stand now, if X-Wings turn out to be too good with torpedoes, they can just make it so that X-Wings can't equip torpedoes.

This was after all the whole point of the upgrade bars & points costs not being printed on the cards anymore.  So it's not like pilots couldn't follow the same rules.

It's just another variable that complicates keeping those costs in check. Defiling like that also prevents them from making pilot abilities tied to the capabilities of a specific ship. It lessens design space while adding balance complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Punning Pundit said:

In theory, this could be quite interesting. In practice think about a 3 v 3 or 4 v 4 (let alone 8 v 8!) match where each player has to account for every ship's firing arcs, status of 4 shield areas per ship, etc. It would bog the game down quite a bit.

I don't know if you've played Epic, but it does have an energy system and it works. Mostly. It's just... not smooth. And most epic games only have 1 or 2 (maximum of 2!) ships with that energy mechanic. Having to keep track of that much information for several ships- 4 or 5  (or at most 16!) would simply not be fun in practice. 

However! I might be wrong. With the extra lines on the cardboard of 2.0, you should be able to mock something up yourself and convince a friend to try it out with you. Let us know how it works in practice. 

I am already trying this system in 1.0e as part of my Tactical Droid A.I. system (but this particular bit is unreleased as of today). It can tell you it works absolutely wonderful. You are correct, it does require more stuff to do and possibly slows down the game. My solution is to have all A.I. ships fly in standard mode (all energy levels neutral, which is what we have today in 1.0e) and the player flies all or some of his ships with changeable energy levels. It does work quite well in human vs human, but as you say, it does add a layer of stuff to do.

Edited by OoALEJOoO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Porkchop Express said:

They haven't said that it is not in the game yet, although I'm not hopeful.

It's already there...sorta

According to the designers, Imps have the most ship- specific abilities out of any faction, to compensate for (relative) lack of upgrade slots

Can at the very least confirm advanced targeting computer, Stygium something, autothrusters (now let interceptors do a red boost/roll after any action, though I'm guessing you can't repeat an action in the same turn) and ailerons on the reaper + striker 

Oh and bombers can use 1 banks to deploy bombs 

Fingers crossed for defender x7 coming back and for gunboat SLAM functionality! 

Edited by ficklegreendice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can still hold out some hope for objective based play, there were some promising things said I think they said the organized play team was excited to be able to change around formats using the app builder. There's a tangential point to that, since many of the xwing 1.0 costs were fine tuned to 100/6. That's because cards get better or worse based on the format when we are talking about a game as hyper competitive as xwing. 

But yeah, my 'missed opportunities list' would be as follows: 

1. Objective based play (or a little more support for it out of the gate)

2. Agreed on the ordnance issue, I think that ordnance should have been reworked a little better to make it 'feel' significantly different than energy weapons. Of course they did introduce range bonuses to turrets so that's a start. 

3. 3D play, It's not hard to do! I think if they had gone the extra mile to do some minimalistic effect or counter to keep track of the z axis it would just crank up the beard-stroker nature of the game up a notch. And have a more realistic space combat feel. The predecessor to xwing, Wings of glory has a system for this. Instead, we have more proliferation of actions and now force charges. Could go wrong IMO.

4. Balance the game a little more to the side of an 'exploding dice' mechanic. Many games have a mechanism whereby the weakest units can still damage the most expensive and pumped up units. I realize there's some harm to hypercompetitive play but IMO it does more good than ill because it encourages the meta to not rely on those pumped up combos too much. And it's just more exciting when any mook can by sheer luck at least damage one of your powerful pieces. 

5. Introduce a more random or game-state dependent initiative mechanic. Rather than PS controlling everything and depending on an intiative bid or single die roll at the start. So you can't always rely on your Ace moving last. Perhaps involve arcs: introduce some bonus to 'initiative' for ships that have another ship in their arc, would simulate 'tailing'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of what I would have wanted in 2.0 has been addressed, but one idea I had was to split up EPTs a bit to make two slots out of them. One would have been the power cards like predator, VI, etc. The other would have been a "tricks" slot for all those EPTs that were discards. I bet you adrenaline rush would be taken if it didn't eat up your EPT slot. Then you could give it to pilots that didn't warrant an EPT slot. Few pilots would have both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, max_ryan said:

 

Why did they not split the ship and pilot card into 2 cards?

 

 

Star Trek Attack Wing does that and it’s a nightmare. Lousy play testing and design means some abilities are far too powerful on some ships. 

Separating the two makes design and balance that much harder. 

No offence, but it’s a terrible idea and I’m glad FFG hasn’t done it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

Star Trek Attack Wing does that and it’s a nightmare. Lousy play testing and design means some abilities are far too powerful on some ships. 

Separating the two makes design and balance that much harder. 

No offence, but it’s a terrible idea and I’m glad FFG hasn’t done it. 

They could just upgrade some ships with extra pilots. Designing around the problematic ones. PS and ability differences are acceptable, as we have seen.

I think it would really help each faction, to have more "familiar faces". Hera in an X-Wing, Marek Steele in a Gunboat, Ezra and Sabine in A-Wings.

More imperial aces could share ships... I'd like to see a Bomber ace in a Punisher, maybe with a different ability too.

Scum, I'm sure has many examples of alternative ship for many pilots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second addition looks great so far and I'm excited for it. With that being said I would have loved to see defense dice go away in favor of tokens or something else, anything else. Ordnance dice would have been cool also, but I don't know they would make the game any better. Taking away large, and now medium, ship speed advantage. Maybe 3.0, which will have the added bonus of seeing the epic meltdowns that will take place when that happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Punning Pundit said:

What's cool is that Wedge now reduces defense dice by 1- so if Wedge is shooting at a Zero Ag ship through an asteroid or at R3, he's still getting benefit. 

And you are of course correct! Well pointed-out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HammerGibbens said:

Eh, don't be obtuse. Even if tournament games run to time, the stated objective is still to 100% kill the other team and nothing else, which isnt as fun for him as some other kind of objective might be. 

no, but this dude kills his opponents after EVERY GAME!  talk about killing a community....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Do I need a Username said:

pg. 17

Look, we had our fun with the death star rule joke but don't be outlandish. Picking a table side AFTER obstacles are deployed ????

(Sorry my original sarcasm didn't make it into text, I do know about that silly rule)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2018 at 5:28 PM, kraedin said:

I doubt Luke will even be any *good*. Most of the time, the 1.0 Lancer gets to shoot at what it wants without much effort; there's no reason to think that the new turrets will be any different. Luke gunner will probably be the 2.0 equivalent of imperial Boba Fett's pilot ability - if you're any good, you won't need or use it. I just don't like what Luke represents for the game.

Keep in mind that if you don't need to use Luke to rotate your arc he is still giving you one force point per turn to spend on dice mods.

 

On 5/5/2018 at 7:17 PM, Porkchop Express said:

They haven't said that it is not in the game yet, although I'm not hopeful.

At least we get double mods on most (all?) our TIEs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

A forward Talon Roll. It’s so weird that they didn’t add it. 

forward move into just normal barrel roll does almost the same thing but you don't end with a stress.

do just pretend they did but only put it on ships with barrel roll actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2018 at 1:09 PM, xanderf said:

...

  • Have we all played 'Armada'?  Some of us?  "Objectives"??  I mean, of everything for X-Wing 2.0 to pass on...SOMETHING OTHER THAN DEATHMATCH AND DEATHMATCH ONLY would have been, I dunno, super awesome.  SOME kind of objectives.  Heck, even if you keep it in the FPS video game flavor and it's just capture-the-flag or team-rabbit or king-of-the-hill or whatever.  Just...something other than always-deathmatch, all-the-time, as part of the core rules.

...

Yes yes yes!!!

Scenarios and objectives please!  Rune Wars does it beautifully, why can't X Wing. I too am so sick of the same deathmatch every game of x wing. There are some great scenarios that come with every ship, sure they need balancing for competition level, but there is something to work with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×